Find LimBusinessListing records - pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch one record by id; omit to query many | |
| skip | No | Records to skip before the first result; 0 or more. | |
| sort | No | Sort field; '-' prefix for descending | |
| limit | No | 1-500; defaults to 50. Out-of-range values are clamped. | |
| query | No | MongoDB-style filter, e.g. {"status": "active"} | |
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the single-vs-list behavior split, but says nothing about default limits, clamping, cost, or result shape beyond what the schema already documents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately presenting the two mutually exclusive modes. Zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the returned record shape, pagination semantics, or the nested query object's capabilities. For a 6-parameter query tool with a nested filter object, this is adequate but leaves real gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already explains id, skip, sort, limit, and query with examples. The description only restates id and query behavior and adds nothing for the undocumented 'fields' parameter or the sort/limit interaction.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (find/query) and resource (LimBusinessListing records) and distinguishes the two retrieval modes (single by id vs filtered list). Sibling differentiation is inherent in the entity name shared across the query_lim* family, so no explicit contrast is needed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives mode selection guidance ('pass id for one record, or query for a filtered list'), which is genuinely useful. However it offers no when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer pagination/filtering over full scans, and no routing to any alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.